Firstly, who said the universe was created? The universe is simply “all that exists”. It presupposes some kind of existence.
There is no explaining existence, an explanation would require something to already exist. Any explanation would presuppose something to exist.
A creator would suppose that something existed. At least himself. But are we meant to suppose that he is the only thing that existed way back in time? That he is some kind of omnipotent being?
Sorry, everything that exists has a nature. But, to have a specific nature means that there are some things you can do and somethings that you cannot. That therefore limits and logically excludes omnipotence. Or even the kind of power that allows one to create a universe.
How is having a creator that can create a universe any kind of logical explanation?
And more obviously, once you decide that the universe has to be created, you need to invent a creator. But, then you need to explain that creator. You need another creator and then another one and another one. It is creators all the way down.
I suppose one could assume that the creator just magically appeared out of nothing. But, if we are going to accept that, is it not simply easier to assume the universe appeared out of nothing?
But, neither the universe nor a creator can appear out of nowhere. If nothing existed, then there is nothing that can cause a creator or a universe to come to exist.
No. The only possibility we are really left with is that the universe always existed. Which is the same as saying that something has always existed.
No creator, sorry.
How are atheists so adamant that there’s no “god”? Isn’t that just as naive as believing there is one?
No, there is nothing “naive” about requiring evidence to believe that something exists. And there is absolutely no evidence that God exists. Just a bunch of claims that never match observable reality and never stand up to a moment of rational thought.
Why should we believe that there is a God? I guess if we ignore logic and reality and just accept nonsensical claims of faith, then we could find a so-called “reason”. But, I am not willing to do those things.
But, it is worse than that, the very nature of God is just impossible. The laws of nature and logic make it clear that no such being could ever exist. By definition, any god is supernatural and thus outside the bounds of nature.
There is nothing at all naive about not finding any reason to believe God is possible and indeed finding a thousand reasons why he could not possibly exist.
Let me deal with one objection some of you might raise: Isn’t this trying to prove a negative? I thought you could not prove a negative…
That does not apply here. If someone makes a claim that contradicts rational metaphysics, the laws of physics or other known aspects of reality, then you most certainly can prove that it is false.
Simply show that if it was true, it would contradict reality. This establishes that it is false.